Brown v. City of Central

1

HOWARD BROWN v. CITY OF CENTRAL, ET AL.

Civil Action No. 22-264-SDD-RLB

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

January 13, 2023

NOTICE

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Please take notice that the attached Magistrate Judge's Report has been filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), you have fourteen (14) days after being served with the attached Report to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact conclusions of law and recommendations therein. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings conclusions, and recommendations within 14 days after being served will bar you, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which have been accepted by the District Court.

ABSOLUTELY NO EXTENSION OF TIME SHALL BE GRANTED TO FILE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court are five Motions to Dismiss by Defendants the City of Central and four Officers of the City of Central's Police Department in their official and individual capacities.^[1](R. Docs. 20, 29, 31, 37, 57). Initially Defendants Chief Roger Corcoran and Officer John H. Porche filed a joint Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) in their official capacities (R. Doc. 20); Defendant City of Central filed a second Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (R. Doc. 29); and Defendant Officer Noah McKneely filed a third Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) in his official capacity (R. Doc. 31).

In response to the foregoing motions, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (R. Doc. 33) and a Motion to Show Cause for Materially False Statements Made by Defendants' Counsel (R. Doc. 34). Defendants the City of Central, Chief Corcoran, Deputy Chief Darren Sibley Officer Porche, and Officer McKneely jointly oppose Plaintiff's motions. (R. Doc. 39).

Subsequently to Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Motion to Show Cause, Defendant Deputy Chief Sibley filed a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) in his official capacity. (R. Doc. 37). Plaintiff did not file a timely opposition addressing this motion. See L.R. 7(f). Instead, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike New Affirmative Defense by Estoppel (R. Doc. 41) and a Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 42). Defendants jointly oppose the foregoing motions. (R. Docs. 45, 46).

Defendants Corocan, Porche, McKneely, and Sibley also filed a joint Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) in their individual capacities (R. Doc. 57). Plaintiff had moved for an entry of default as to the four defendants in their individual capacities prior to the filing of the Motion to Dismiss. (R. Docs. 48, 50, 52, 54). The Clerk denied Plaintiff's Motions for Entry of Default, (R. Docs. 49, 51, 53, 55), and Plaintiff filed a Motion to Correct Clerk's Error of Default Judgment. (R. Doc. 56). In response, Defendants Corocan, Porche, McKneely, and Sibley filed the instant motion to dismiss in their individual capacities. (R. Doc. 57). Plaintiff opposes the motion. (R. Doc. 58). Plaintiff additionally filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for allegedly untimely filing the motion in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 and Local Rule 7(a). (R. Doc. 59). Defendants contend that their motion to dismiss was not untimely and oppose the motion to strike. (R. Doc. 61).

Also before the Court, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Discovery pending the resolution of their motions to dismiss. (R. Docs. 60). Plaintiff has not directly responded to the motion to stay, but he filed a related Motion to Compel Discovery. (R. Doc. 62).

Because Plaintiff fails to state a claim, the Court recommends granting Defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court further concludes that any further amendment would be futile with respect to the claims already alleged.

I. Background

According to Plaintiff's allegations, on August 6, 2020, Officer John H. Porche of the City of Central Police Department stopped a motorcycle operated by Plaintiff. (R. Doc. 1 at 6). The motorcycle did not display a license plate. (Id.). Officer Porche requested that Plaintiff provide a copy of his license and registration, and Plaintiff instead presented a document with “a strongly worded warning to officials not to presume or assume anything about Plaintiff.” (Id. at 6-7 (emphasis in original)). The document contained Plaintiff's name and signature, but Plaintiff otherwise refused to identify himself. (Id. at 7, 10). Officer Porche requested assistance, and six to seven additional officers arrived at the scene. (Id. at 7). The officers included Defendants Police Chief Roger Lynn Corcoran, Deputy Police Chief Darren Sibley, Officer Noah McKneely, and Louisiana State Trooper Alex. Officers allegedly detained Plaintiff for over two hours. (Id. at 7). During the traffic stop, Chief Corcoran purportedly “struck” Plaintiff's right back pants pocket where he kept his cellphone. (Id. at 8). Ultimately, the police issued him three traffic citations and towed away the motorcycle. (Id. at 7-9).

On April 21, 2022, approximately twenty months after the traffic stop, Plaintiff filed the Complaint. (R. Doc. 1). Plaintiff asserts claims for: (1) a violation of his Fourth Amendment right against illegal seizures under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) a “conspiracy against rights” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241; (3) a “deprivation of rights under color of law” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242; (4) a “common law conspiracy;” (5) trespass; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) conversion. (Id.). Plaintiff also arguably asserts claims under Section 1983 for violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. (See id. at 12). Defendants have moved to dismiss the claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (R. Docs. 20, 29, 31, 37, 57). Defendants all assert Plaintiff's claims are prescribed by the statute of limitations.

(R. Docs. 20-1 at 2-3, 31 at 2-3, 37-1 at 2-3, 57). The individually named officers additionally assert qualified immunity. (R. Docs. 20-1 at 3-7, 31-1 at 3-7, 37-1 at 3-7). The City of Central states that the claims against it are derivative of the claims against the officers, and they should be dismissed because there is no underlying violation of Plaintiff's rights. (R. Doc. 29-1 at 7). Both the City of Central and the Officers in their official capacities also maintain that Plaintiff fails to identify a specific policy or custom giving rise to any constitutional violations. (R. Doc. 39 at 7). Lastly, Deputy Chief Sibley and Officer McKneely maintain that Plaintiff has not asserted any specific allegations against them. (R. Docs. 31-1 at 7, 37-1 at 7).

Plaintiff counters with five separate motions. First, although styled as a motion, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Motions to Dismiss essentially is an opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. (See R. Doc. 33). Plaintiff attempts to rebut Defendants' prescription and qualified immunity arguments, and Plaintiff does not cite a legal basis for striking Defendants' motions. Second, Plaintiff moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for an order to show cause why defense counsel “should not be held in contempt” for “materially false statements.” (R. Doc. 34 at 1). Plaintiff contends that Defendants have set forth inconsistent defenses that, therefore, must be materially false. Defendants filed a single, joint opposition to both motions. (R. Doc. 39). The response treated the motion to strike, in part, as a response to Defendants' motions to dismiss and did not address Plaintiff's request for relief. Third, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike New Affirmative Defense by Estoppel moves to strike Defendants' statute of limitations defense pursuant to Rule 8. (R. Doc. 41). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants waived the affirmative defense by not asserting it in their Answer. (Id.). Defendants counter that any failure to assert the statute of limitations defense is not fatal because Plaintiff has not suffered any prejudice. (R. Doc. 46 at 3-5). Fourth, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment.

(R. Doc. 42). In response, Defendants move under Rule 56(d) for the Court to deny summary judgment to afford them time to conduct discovery. (R. Doc. 45). Fifth, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Motion to Dismiss seeks to strike as untimely the motion to dismiss filed by the officers in their individual capacities. (R. Doc. 59). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the officers have not demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause for failing to file their response within twenty-one days of being served with the Complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Local Rule 7(a). (R. Doc. 59-1 at 3-4). Defendants maintain that their motion was not untimely and oppose Plaintiff's motion to strike. (R. Doc. 61).

II. Law and Analysis

A. Legal Standard for Motion to Dismiss

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint against the legal standard set forth in Rule 8 which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a pleading's language, on its face, must demonstrate that there exists plausibility for entitlement to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007). “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)...